@article{aaroe2014,
  title = {Crowding {{Out Culture}}: {{Scandinavians}} and {{Americans Agree}} on {{Social Welfare}} in the {{Face}} of {{Deservingness Cues}}},
  shorttitle = {Crowding {{Out Culture}}},
  author = {Aar{\o}e, Lene and Petersen, Michael Bang},
  year = {2014},
  month = jul,
  journal = {The Journal of Politics},
  volume = {76},
  number = {3},
  pages = {684--697},
  issn = {0022-3816},
  doi = {10.1017/S002238161400019X},
  urldate = {2019-12-14},
  abstract = {A robust finding in the welfare state literature is that public support for the welfare state differs widely across countries. Yet recent research on the psychology of welfare support suggests that people everywhere form welfare opinions using psychological predispositions designed to regulate interpersonal help giving using cues regarding recipient effort. We argue that this implies that cross-national differences in welfare support emerge from mutable differences in stereotypes about recipient efforts rather than deep differences in psychological predispositions. Using free-association tasks and experiments embedded in large-scale, nationally representative surveys collected in the United States and Denmark, we test this argument by investigating the stability of opinion differences when faced with the presence and absence of cues about the deservingness of specific welfare recipients. Despite decades of exposure to different cultures and welfare institutions, two sentences of information can make welfare support across the U.S. and Scandinavian samples substantially and statistically indistinguishable.},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Fairness,Support for redistribution},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/3CPIAR8L/Aarøe and Petersen - 2014 - Crowding Out Culture Scandinavians and Americans .pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/BJ5FIJVA/S002238161400019X.html}
}

@article{abramson2020,
  title = {Improving {{Preference Elicitation}} in {{Conjoint Designs}} Using {{Machine Learning}} for {{Heterogeneous Effects}}},
  author = {Abramson, Scott F and Kocak, Korhan and Magazinnik, Asya and Strezhnev, Anton},
  year = {2020},
  pages = {52},
  abstract = {Conjoint analysis has become a standard tool for preference elicitation in political science. However the typical estimand, the Average Marginal Component Effect (AMCE), is only tangentially linked to theoretically relevant quantities. In this paper we clarify the necessary theoretical assumptions to interpret the AMCE in terms of individual preferences, explain how heterogeneity in marginal component effects can drive misleading conclusions about preferences, and provide a set of tools based on the causal/generalized random forest method (Athey et al., 2019; Wager \& Athey, 2018) that allow applied researchers to detect effect heterogeneity between respondents and derive theoretically relevant quantities of interest from estimates of individual-level marginal component effects. We illustrate this method with an application to a recently conducted conjoint experiment on candidate preferences in the 2020 U.S. Democratic Presidential primary.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Methodology},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/3QYZCKJZ/polmeth_magazinnik.pdf}
}

@article{abramson2022,
  ids = {abramson2019},
  title = {What {{Do We Learn}} about {{Voter Preferences}} from {{Conjoint Experiments}}?},
  author = {Abramson, Scott F. and Kocak, Korhan and Magazinnik, Asya},
  year = {2022},
  journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
  volume = {66},
  number = {4},
  pages = {1008--1020},
  issn = {1540-5907},
  doi = {10.1111/ajps.12714},
  urldate = {2024-08-01},
  abstract = {Political scientists frequently interpret the results of conjoint experiments as reflective of majority preferences. In this article, we show that the target estimand of conjoint experiments, the average marginal component effect (AMCE), is not well defined in these terms. Even with individually rational experimental subjects, the AMCE can indicate the opposite of the true preference of the majority. To show this, we characterize the preference aggregation rule implied by the AMCE and demonstrate its several undesirable properties. With this result, we provide a method for placing bounds on the proportion of experimental subjects who prefer a given candidate feature. We describe conditions under which the AMCE corresponds in sign with the majority preference. Finally, we offer a structural interpretation of the AMCE and highlight that the problem we describe persists even when a model of voting is imposed.},
  copyright = {{\copyright} 2022 The Authors. American Journal of Political Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Midwest Political Science Association.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Methodology},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/73EEIJP6/Abramson et al. - What Do We Learn About Voter Preferences From Conj.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/CYAFQPZC/Abramson et al. - 2022 - What Do We Learn about Voter Preferences from Conj.pdf}
}

@book{achen2016,
  title = {Democracy for {{Realists}}},
  author = {Achen, Christopher H and Bartels, Larry M},
  year = {2016},
  publisher = {Princeton University Press},
  address = {Princeton},
  urldate = {2020-08-11},
  abstract = {Why our belief in government by the people is unrealistic---and what we can do about it},
  isbn = {978-0-691-16944-6},
  langid = {english},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/XVRB3Q7V/democracy-for-realists.html}
}

@article{alesina2018,
  title = {Intergenerational {{Mobility}} and {{Preferences}} for {{Redistribution}}},
  author = {Alesina, Alberto and Stantcheva, Stefanie and Teso, Edoardo},
  year = {2018},
  month = feb,
  journal = {American Economic Review},
  volume = {108},
  number = {2},
  pages = {521--554},
  issn = {0002-8282},
  doi = {10.1257/aer.20162015},
  urldate = {2019-07-04},
  abstract = {Using new cross-country survey and experimental data, we investigate how beliefs about intergenerational mobility affect preferences for redistribution in France, Italy, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Americans are more optimistic than Europeans about social mobility. Our randomized treatment shows pessimistic information about mobility and increases support for redistribution, mostly for "equality of opportunity" policies. We find strong political polarization. Left-wing respondents are more pessimistic about mobility: their preferences for redistribution are correlated with their mobility perceptions; and they support more redistribution after seeing pessimistic information. None of this is true for right-wing respondents, possibly because they see the government as a "problem" and not as the "solution".},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Economic inequality,Income inequality,Mobility,Support for redistribution},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/LXWD6QNC/Alesina et al. - 2018 - Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Red.pdf}
}

@article{almas2022,
  title = {Global Evidence on the Selfish Rich Inequality Hypothesis},
  author = {Alm{\aa}s, Ingvild and Cappelen, Alexander W. and S{\o}rensen, Erik {\O}. and Tungodden, Bertil},
  year = {2022},
  month = jan,
  journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  volume = {119},
  number = {3},
  pages = {e2109690119},
  issn = {0027-8424, 1091-6490},
  doi = {10.1073/pnas.2109690119},
  urldate = {2022-01-17},
  abstract = {We report on a study of whether people believe that the rich are richer than the poor because they have been more selfish in life, using data from more than 26,000 individuals in 60 countries. The findings show a strong belief in the selfish rich inequality hypothesis at the global level; in the majority of countries, the mode is to strongly agree with it. However, we also identify important between- and within-country variation. We find that the belief in selfish rich inequality is much stronger in countries with extensive corruption and weak institutions and less strong among people who are higher in the income distribution in their society. Finally, we show that the belief in selfish rich inequality is predictive of people's policy views on inequality and redistribution: It is significantly positively associated with agreeing that inequality in their country is unfair, and it is significantly positively associated with agreeing that the government should aim to reduce inequality. These relationships are highly significant both across and within countries and robust to including country-level or individual-level controls and using Lasso-selected regressors. Thus, the data provide compelling evidence of people believing that the rich are richer because they have been more selfish in life and perceiving selfish behavior as creating unfair inequality and justifying equalizing policies.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Fairness,Support for redistribution,The rich},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/ACTYEMCP/Almås et al. - 2022 - Global evidence on the selfish rich inequality hyp.pdf}
}

@article{alvarado2024,
  ids = {alvarado2021},
  title = {Compensation and {{Tax Fairness}}: {{Evidence From Four Countries}}},
  shorttitle = {Compensation and {{Tax Fairness}}},
  author = {Alvarado, Mariana},
  year = {2024},
  month = mar,
  journal = {British Journal of Political Science},
  pages = {1--20},
  issn = {0007-1234, 1469-2112},
  doi = {10.1017/S0007123423000698},
  urldate = {2024-03-04},
  abstract = {This paper uses a conjoint survey experiment fielded in the US, Australia, Chile, and Argentina to develop and test the compensatory theory of tax fairness, which states that higher taxes on the rich can be used to compensate for other benefits unequally granted by the state. Drawing on social psychology, this paper argues that evidence of preferential treatment by the state violates well-established fairness principles and shows, experimentally, that it leads to taxation to restore equality in crisis times, irrespective of wealth and across a variety of settings. The paper makes two important contributions: it provides the first direct, causal evidence of the importance of compensatory arguments for tax preferences and presents unconfounded estimates of the effect of more established fairness considerations as benchmarks against which to compare the importance of compensatory arguments.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Fairness,Support for redistribution,The rich},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/P3MMRE97/Alvarado - 2024 - Compensation and Tax Fairness Evidence From Four .pdf}
}

@article{atkinson2016a,
  title = {The {{Long-Run History}} of {{Income Inequality}} in {{Denmark}}},
  author = {Atkinson, Anthony B. and S{\o}gaard, Jakob Egholt},
  year = {2016},
  journal = {The Scandinavian Journal of Economics},
  volume = {118},
  number = {2},
  pages = {264--291},
  issn = {1467-9442},
  doi = {10.1111/sjoe.12143},
  urldate = {2021-04-11},
  abstract = {We use historical publications and micro data from tax returns to construct internationally comparable estimates of the development in income inequality in Denmark over the last 140 years. The study shows that income inequality and top income shares have declined during several distinct phases in between periods of stability. Furthermore, the quality of the Danish data allows us to analyse not only the development in top income shares but also broader inequality measures such as the Gini coefficient. These analyses show that top income shares are a good proxy for the underlying development in inequality.},
  copyright = {{\copyright} The editors of The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 2015.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Inequality - trends},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/DNTNZP9C/Atkinson and Søgaard - 2016 - The Long-Run History of Income Inequality in Denma.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/2GQTUMJF/sjoe.html}
}

@article{attewell2021,
  title = {Deservingness Perceptions, Welfare State Support and Vote Choice in {{Western Europe}}},
  author = {Attewell, David},
  year = {2021},
  journal = {West European Politics},
  volume = {44},
  number = {3},
  pages = {611--634},
  issn = {0140-2382},
  doi = {10.1080/01402382.2020.1715704},
  urldate = {2020-02-12},
  abstract = {In today's diversified party systems, the economic dimension is no longer a unidimensional conflict between pro-redistribution voters of the left and anti-redistribution voters of the right. Analyzing 2016 European Social Survey data for 15 Western European countries, this article argues that perceptions of the deservingness of benefit recipients and attitudes towards the scope of the welfare state are distinct, powerful predictors of vote choice. The effects of attitudes on these two subdimensions are strong and congruent in predicting voting for older party families. Deservingness perceptions are an even more powerful predictor of voting for green and radical right parties, while attitudes towards the scope of the welfare state are not significant predictors of voting for either. Disaggregating the economic left/right reveals that certain types of redistribution attitudes predict vote choice even for parties known for their positions on `non-economic' issues like immigration and European integration.},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Support for redistribution},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/5HLW6IEY/Attewell - 2020 - Deservingness perceptions, welfare state support a.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/U45HVWTA/01402382.2020.html}
}

@article{ballard-rosa2017,
  title = {The {{Structure}} of {{American Income Tax Policy Preferences}}},
  author = {{Ballard-Rosa}, Cameron and Martin, Lucy and Scheve, Kenneth},
  year = {2017},
  journal = {The Journal of Politics},
  volume = {79},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1--16},
  issn = {0022-3816},
  doi = {10.1086/687324},
  abstract = {In recent decades inequality in the United States has increased dramatically, but policy responses in terms of redistribution have been limited. This is not easily explained by standard political economy theory, which predicts a positive relationship between inequality and redistribution. One set of explanations for this puzzle focuses on whether and why redistributive preferences are muted in the presence of high inequality. While much recent research has focused on citizens' preferences over government spending, we argue that preferences over taxation are a central piece of this puzzle. This article implements an experimental conjoint survey design to measure American income tax preferences across six income brackets. We find that policy opinions are generally progressive but that preferences do not vary substantially from current tax policies, and support for taxing the rich is highly inelastic. We show that both economic and fairness concerns affect individual tax preferences and find that conflict is primarily over taxing high incomes.},
  keywords = {Economic inequality,Fairness,Support for redistribution,Welfare state},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/GIUYJALQ/Ballard-Rosa, Martin, Scheve - The Structure of American Income Tax Policy Preferences - 2017.pdf}
}

@incollection{bangpetersen2023,
  title = {The {{Evolutionary Approach}} to {{Political Psychology}}},
  booktitle = {The {{Oxford Handbook}} of {{Political Psychology}}},
  author = {Bang Petersen, Michael},
  editor = {Huddy, Leonie and Sears, David O. and Levy, Jack S. and Jerit, Jennifer},
  year = {2023},
  month = sep,
  pages = {0},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  doi = {10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197541302.013.6},
  urldate = {2024-06-07},
  abstract = {This chapter reviews how biological evolution has shaped human political psychology and how political psychologists can approach the study of evolution and politics. The core argument of the evolutionary approach to political psychology is that our ancestors repeatedly faced political problems as part of their small-scale social life. If evolution had not designed the human mind to deal with these problems, our ancestors would not have survived and reproduced. Accordingly, political psychologists should expect the human mind to contain a large number of psychological mechanisms specifically dedicated to political decision-making. The chapter outlines the general political problems faced by our ancestors; illustrates the evolutionary approach through in-depth discussions of the politics of pathogen avoidance, cheater detection, and status seeking; provides concrete advice on how to theorize about political psychology from an evolutionary perspective; and discusses how an evolutionary perspective sheds new light on classical discussions about citizens' rationality.},
  isbn = {978-0-19-754130-2},
  keywords = {Political psychology},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/EGLJG4FB/Bang Petersen - 2023 - The Evolutionary Approach to Political Psychology.pdf}
}

@article{bartels2005a,
  title = {Homer {{Gets}} a {{Tax Cut}}: {{Inequality}} and {{Public Policy}} in the {{American Mind}}},
  author = {Bartels, Larry M},
  year = {2005},
  journal = {Perspectives on Politics},
  volume = {3},
  number = {1},
  pages = {15--31},
  abstract = {In 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration engineered two enormous tax cuts primarily benefiting very wealthy taxpayers. Most Americans supported these tax cuts. I argue that they did so not because they were indifferent to economic inequality, but because they largely failed to connect inequality and public policy. Three out of every four people polled said that the difference in incomes between rich people and poor people has increased in the past 20 years, and most of them added that that is a bad thing---but most of those people still supported the regressive 2001 Bush tax cut and the even more regressive repeal of the estate tax. Several manifestly relevant considerations had negligible or seemingly perverse effects on these policy views, including assessments of the wastefulness of government spending and desires for additional spending on a variety of government programs. Support for the Bush tax cuts was strongly shaped by people's attitudes about their own tax burdens, but virtually unaffected by their attitudes about the tax burden of the rich---even in the case of the estate tax, which only affects the wealthiest one or two percent of taxpayers. Public opinion in this instance was ill informed, insensitive to some of the most important implications of the tax cuts, and largely disconnected from (or misconnected to) a variety of relevant values and material interests.},
  keywords = {Information effects},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/E8MXYL5L/Bartels - Homer Gets a Tax Cut Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind - 2005.pdf}
}

@article{barton2021,
  title = {Undeserving Rich or Untrustworthy Government? {{How}} Elite Rhetoric Erodes Support for Soaking the Rich},
  shorttitle = {Undeserving Rich or Untrustworthy Government?},
  author = {Barton, Richard and Piston, Spencer},
  year = {2021},
  month = mar,
  journal = {Politics, Groups, and Identities},
  volume = {0},
  number = {0},
  pages = {1--25},
  publisher = {Routledge},
  issn = {2156-5503},
  doi = {10.1080/21565503.2021.1884890},
  urldate = {2021-03-09},
  abstract = {Why did Washington State citizens vote down a 2010 ballot measure that would have increased taxes on the rich? This outcome appears to contradict consistent survey findings that majorities of the public support increases in taxes on the rich, including those from Washington State polls early in the campaign, before support for the measure plummeted. We investigate the fate of the Washington ballot measure in order to shed light on the broader question of under what conditions the American public supports government efforts to combat rising economic inequality. We do so through a brief case study of the campaign, combined with an original survey experiment in which we isolate the effects of a particular framing strategy focusing on a unique feature of the measure: it would create a new state income tax. The findings indicate that this frame was successful in depressing public support for the measure, possibly because the frame tapped into distrust in government while deactivating negative attitudes about rich people. In the concluding section, we place these findings in context of the mixed results of other recent state-level ballot measures attempting to raise taxes on the rich, and identify implications for future efforts to redistribute wealth downward.},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/RVRGWYLU/21565503.2021.html}
}

@article{black2020,
  title = {Do Rich People ``Deserve'' to Be Rich? {{Charitable}} Giving, Internal Attributions of Wealth, and Judgments of Economic Deservingness},
  shorttitle = {Do Rich People ``Deserve'' to Be Rich?},
  author = {Black, Juliana F. and Davidai, Shai},
  year = {2020},
  month = sep,
  journal = {Journal of Experimental Social Psychology},
  volume = {90},
  pages = {104011},
  issn = {0022-1031},
  doi = {10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104011},
  urldate = {2020-06-16},
  abstract = {People often judge how much ``the rich'' deserve to be rich by taking into consideration how they had made their wealth. How do people make such judgments about the origins of others' wealth? In nine studies (N~=~1707) and two supplemental analyses (N~=~197), we examine whether the attributions people make about wealth are influenced by the way wealthy people spend their money. We find that people are more likely to attribute economic success to internal factors (such as hard work and competence) when ``the rich'' spend their money charitably versus when they spend it in a more luxurious manner. Moreover, we find that the tendency to attribute wealth to internal factors is due to judgments about wealthy individuals' character, and that the influence of spending on trait attribution is substantially larger for merit-related traits (e.g., persistence or industriousness) than other positive traits that are unrelated to merit (e.g., elegance or youthfulness). Finally, we find that how ``the rich'' spend their fortunes influences beliefs about how much they deserve to be rich. The more wealthy people give their money to charity, the more people believe that they deserve to have it in the first place.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Deservingness,The rich},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/BSLX7L6Q/Black and Davidai - 2020 - Do rich people “deserve” to be rich Charitable gi.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/49UBV7SV/S0022103120303516.html}
}

@article{bower-bir2022,
  title = {Desert and Redistribution: {{Justice}} as a Remedy for, and Cause of, Economic Inequality},
  shorttitle = {Desert and Redistribution},
  author = {{Bower-Bir}, Jacob S.},
  year = {2022},
  journal = {Policy Studies Journal},
  volume = {50},
  number = {4},
  pages = {757--795},
  issn = {1541-0072},
  doi = {10.1111/psj.12439},
  urldate = {2021-10-04},
  abstract = {Post-positivist scholars have shown that justice motivates personal behavior and policymaking, but they have not adequately explained how such normative concerns exert their influence. I argue that justice is the rewarding of desert, and desert is an emergent social institution. As a social institution, community members have built-in incentives to enforce and perpetuate communal understandings of desert though external sanctions and inculcation. As an evolutionary phenomenon, what constitutes upright, moral behavior will vary across communities and contexts, constraining individuals and policymakers as they address community issues. In an empirical test of my theory, I find that an individual's support for redistributive policies is driven by her (a) belief in desert's reward and (b) definition of economic deservingness. People tolerate grave inequalities if they think those inequalities are deserved. Indeed, if outcomes appear deserved, altering them constitutes an unjust act. Moreover, people who assign a significant role to personal responsibility in their definitions of economic desert oppose large-scale redistribution policies because government intervention makes it harder for people to (by their definition) deserve their economic station. In short, people must perceive inequality as undeserved to motivate a policy response, and the means of combating inequality must not undermine desert.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/JGCQIE62/858823_814166a35de4448e92e0f93c9b5c9665.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/2ZSUCS4L/psj.html}
}

@article{cavaille2015,
  title = {The {{Two Facets}} of {{Social Policy Preferences}}},
  author = {Cavaille, Charlotte and Trump, Kris-Stella},
  year = {2015},
  journal = {The Journal of Politics},
  volume = {77},
  number = {1},
  pages = {146--160},
  keywords = {Income inequality,Support for redistribution,Welfare state},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/MMFQPJD3/Cavaille and Trump - 2015 - The Two Facets of Social Policy Preferences.pdf}
}

@book{cavaille2023,
  title = {Fair {{Enough}}?: {{Support}} for {{Redistribution}} in the {{Age}} of {{Inequality}}},
  shorttitle = {Fair {{Enough}}?},
  author = {Cavaill{\'e}, Charlotte},
  year = {2023},
  series = {Cambridge {{Studies}} in {{Comparative Politics}}},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  address = {Cambridge},
  doi = {10.1017/9781009366038},
  urldate = {2024-05-01},
  abstract = {Fair Enough? proposes and tests a new framework for studying attitudes toward redistributive social policies. These attitudes, the book argues, are shaped by at least two motives. First, people support policies that increase their own expected income. Second, they support policies that move the status quo closer to what is prescribed by shared norms of fairness. In most circumstances, saying the ``fair thing'' is easier than reasoning according to one's pocketbook. But there are important exceptions: when policies have large and certain pocketbook consequences, people take the self-interested position instead of the 'fair' one. Fair Enough? builds on this simple framework to explain puzzling attitudinal trends in post-industrial democracies including a decline in support for redistribution in Great Britain, the erosion of social solidarity in France, and a declining correlation between income and support for redistribution in the United States.},
  isbn = {978-1-00-936606-9}
}

@article{conover1988,
  title = {The {{Role}} of {{Social Groups}} in {{Political Thinking}}},
  author = {Conover, Pamela Johnston},
  year = {1988},
  month = jan,
  journal = {British Journal of Political Science},
  volume = {18},
  number = {1},
  pages = {51--76},
  issn = {0007-1234, 1469-2112},
  doi = {10.1017/S0007123400004956},
  urldate = {2019-07-10},
  abstract = {This article outlines a cognitive-affective model of the role of social groups in political thinking. The model is based on the assumptions that people have stored information and emotional reactions to social groups, and that people are purposive in their thinking about social groups in the sense that they are interested in understanding what various groups have obtained and whether it is deserved. The process through which social groups influence political thinking varies significantly depending upon whether an individual identifies with the group in question. Generally, people are more inclined to feel sympathetic towards the groups to which they belong. These ideas are illustrated with an empirical analysis that focuses on women's issues and makes use of data collected in the 1984 National Election Study Pilot Study.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Attitudes,Fairness,Favorites,Political psychology},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/L843Z489/Conover - 1988 - The Role of Social Groups in Political Thinking.pdf}
}

@article{coppock2018,
  title = {Generalizability of Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimates across Samples},
  author = {Coppock, Alexander and Leeper, Thomas J. and Mullinix, Kevin J.},
  year = {2018},
  month = dec,
  journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  volume = {115},
  number = {49},
  pages = {12441--12446},
  publisher = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  doi = {10.1073/pnas.1808083115},
  urldate = {2023-01-20},
  abstract = {The extent to which survey experiments conducted with nonrepresentative convenience samples are generalizable to target populations depends critically on the degree of treatment effect heterogeneity. Recent inquiries have found a strong correspondence between sample average treatment effects estimated in nationally representative experiments and in replication studies conducted with convenience samples. We consider here two possible explanations: low levels of effect heterogeneity or high levels of effect heterogeneity that are unrelated to selection into the convenience sample. We analyze subgroup conditional average treatment effects using 27 original--replication study pairs (encompassing 101,745 individual survey responses) to assess the extent to which subgroup effect estimates generalize. While there are exceptions, the overwhelming pattern that emerges is one of treatment effect homogeneity, providing a partial explanation for strong correspondence across both unconditional and conditional average treatment effect estimates.},
  keywords = {Methodology,Online samples},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/RLXXZ9XJ/Coppock et al. - 2018 - Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect.pdf}
}

@incollection{cosmides2015,
  title = {Neurocognitive {{Adaptations Designed}} for {{Social Exchange}}},
  booktitle = {The {{Handbook}} of {{Evolutionary Psychology}}},
  author = {Cosmides, Leda and Tooby, John},
  year = {2015},
  pages = {584--627},
  publisher = {John Wiley \& Sons, Ltd},
  doi = {10.1002/9780470939376.ch20},
  urldate = {2024-06-13},
  abstract = {For 25 years, the authors have been investigating the hypothesis that the enduring presence of social exchange interactions among our ancestors has selected for cognitive mechanisms that are specialized for reasoning about social exchange. This chapter discusses some of the high points of this 25-year research program. It argues that social exchange is ubiquitously woven through the fabric of human life in all human cultures everywhere. The complex pattern of functional and neural dissociations reveals that a neurocognitive specialization for reasoning about social exchange is implicated, including a subroutine for cheater detection. The chapter shows that the design, ontogenetic timetable, and cross-cultural distribution of social exchange are not consistent with any known domain-general learning process. Taken together, the data showing design specificity, precocious development, cross-cultural universality, and neural dissociability implicate the existence of an evolved, species-typical neurocomputational specialization.},
  chapter = {20},
  copyright = {Copyright {\copyright} 2005 John Wiley \& Sons, Inc.},
  isbn = {978-0-470-93937-6},
  langid = {english},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/YVVP78DN/Cosmides and Tooby - 2015 - Neurocognitive Adaptations Designed for Social Exc.pdf}
}

@article{desante2013,
  ids = {desante2013a},
  title = {Working {{Twice}} as {{Hard}} to {{Get Half}} as {{Far}}: {{Race}}, {{Work Ethic}}, and {{America}}'s {{Deserving Poor}}},
  author = {DeSante, Christopher D.},
  year = {2013},
  month = apr,
  journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
  volume = {57},
  number = {2},
  pages = {342--356},
  issn = {00925853},
  doi = {10.1111/ajps.12006},
  urldate = {2013-11-19},
  keywords = {Political psychology,SES},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/IQIJJAZH/DeSante - 2013 - Working Twice as Hard to Get Half as Far Race, Wo.pdf}
}

@article{deutsch1975,
  title = {Equity, {{Equality}}, and {{Need}}: {{What Determines Which Value Will Be Used}} as the {{Basis}} of {{Distributive Justice}}?},
  shorttitle = {Equity, {{Equality}}, and {{Need}}},
  author = {Deutsch, Morton},
  year = {1975},
  journal = {Journal of Social Issues},
  volume = {31},
  number = {3},
  pages = {137--149},
  issn = {1540-4560},
  doi = {10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.x},
  urldate = {2019-12-09},
  abstract = {The concept of justice is discussed, and the thesis is advanced that ``equity'' is only one of the many values which may underlie a given system of justice. Hypotheses about the conditions which determine which values will be employed as the basis of distributive justice in a group are proposed, with discussion centered about the values of ``equity,'' ``equality,'' and ``need'' and the conditions which lead a group to emphasize one rather than another value.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Fairness},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/2WT75W6X/Deutsch - 1975 - Equity, Equality, and Need What Determines Which .pdf}
}

@article{finkel2020,
  title = {Political Sectarianism in {{America}}},
  author = {Finkel, Eli J. and Bail, Christopher A. and Cikara, Mina and Ditto, Peter H. and Iyengar, Shanto and Klar, Samara and Mason, Lilliana and McGrath, Mary C. and Nyhan, Brendan and Rand, David G. and Skitka, Linda J. and Tucker, Joshua A. and Bavel, Jay J. Van and Wang, Cynthia S. and Druckman, James N.},
  year = {2020},
  month = oct,
  journal = {Science},
  volume = {370},
  number = {6516},
  pages = {533--536},
  publisher = {American Association for the Advancement of Science},
  issn = {0036-8075, 1095-9203},
  doi = {10.1126/science.abe1715},
  urldate = {2020-10-30},
  abstract = {A poisonous cocktail of othering, aversion, and moralization poses a threat to democracy A poisonous cocktail of othering, aversion, and moralization poses a threat to democracy},
  chapter = {Policy Forum},
  copyright = {Copyright {\copyright} 2020, American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/about/science-licenses-journal-article-reuseThis is an article distributed under the terms of the Science Journals Default License.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Classroom use,Intergroup relations,Polarization},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/AWLP2C85/Finkel et al. - 2020 - Political sectarianism in America.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/XQK32JS5/533.html;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/XT5UABXD/533.html}
}

@article{garcia-sanchez2019,
  title = {Attitudes towards Redistribution and the Interplay between Perceptions and Beliefs about Inequality},
  author = {Garc{\'i}a-S{\'a}nchez, Efra{\'i}n and Obsorne, Danny and Willis, Guillermo B. and Rodr{\'i}guez-Bail{\'o}n, Rosa},
  year = {2019},
  journal = {British Journal of Social Psychology},
  volume = {0},
  number = {0},
  issn = {2044-8309},
  doi = {10.1111/bjso.12326},
  urldate = {2019-08-15},
  abstract = {Although economic inequality has increased over the last few decades, support for redistributive policies is not widely accepted by the public. In this paper, we examine whether attitudes towards redistribution are a product of both perceptions of, and beliefs about, inequality. Specifically, we argue that the association between perceived inequality and support for redistribution varies by beliefs that justify inequality. We investigated this hypothesis in a cross-cultural/country sample (N = 56,021 from 41 countries) using two different operationalizations of support for redistribution and two distinct beliefs that justify inequality. As hypothesized, the perceived size of the income gap correlated positively with believing that it is the government's responsibility to reduce inequality among those who rejected beliefs that justify inequality, whereas there was no association for those who endorsed these beliefs. Similarly, perceived economic inequality correlated positively with support for progressive taxation, but this association was weaker among those who endorsed meritocratic and equal opportunity beliefs. Together, these results demonstrate that ideologies influence the relationship between perceived inequality and attitudes towards redistribution, and that support for redistribution varies by how the policy is framed.},
  copyright = {{\copyright} 2019 The British Psychological Society},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Income inequality,Inequality - attitudes,Inequality - perceptions,Support for redistribution},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/J848VFPU/Osborne, Willis - Attitudes toward redistribution and the interplay between perceptions and beliefs about inequality Short title Percep.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/SJPPZH86/García‐Sánchez et al. - Attitudes towards redistribution and the interplay.pdf}
}

@book{gilens1999,
  title = {Why {{Americans}} Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy},
  author = {Gilens, Martin},
  year = {1999},
  publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
  address = {Chicago},
  urldate = {2010-08-05},
  abstract = {Tackling one of the most volatile issues in contemporary politics, Martin Gilens's work punctures myths and misconceptions about welfare policy, public opinion, and the role of the media in both. Why Americans Hate Welfare shows that the public's views on welfare are a complex mixture of cynicism and compassion; misinformed and racially charged, they nevertheless reflect both a distrust of welfare recipients and a desire to do more to help the "deserving" poor. "With one out of five children currently living in poverty and more than 100,000 families with children now homeless, Gilens's book is must reading if you want to understand how the mainstream media have helped justify, and even produce, this state of affairs." --Susan Douglas, The Progressive "Gilens's well-written and logically developed argument deserves to be taken seriously." --Choice "A provocative analysis of American attitudes towards 'welfare.'. . . [Gilens] shows how racial stereotypes, not white self-interest or anti-statism, lie at the root of opposition to welfare programs." -Library Journal},
  isbn = {0-226-29365-3},
  keywords = {Income inequality,Political behavior,Political psychology,Race,Support for redistribution}
}

@book{guardino2019,
  title = {Framing {{Inequality}}: {{News Media}}, {{Public Opinion}}, and the {{Neoliberal Turn}} in {{U}}.{{S}}. {{Public Policy}}},
  shorttitle = {Framing {{Inequality}}},
  author = {Guardino, Matt},
  year = {2019},
  month = mar,
  series = {Studies in {{Postwar American Political Development}}},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  address = {Oxford, New York},
  abstract = {Neoliberal policy approaches have swept over the American political economy in recent decades. In Framing Inequality, Matt Guardino focuses on the power of corporate news media in shaping how the public understands the pivotal policy debates of this period. Drawing on a wide range of empirical evidence from the dawn of the Reagan era into the Trump administration, he explains how profit pressures and commercial imperatives in the media have narrowed and trivialized news coverage and influenced public attitudes in the process. Guardino highlights how the political-economic structure of mainstream media operates to magnify some political messages and to mute or shut out others. He contends that news framing of policies that contribute to economic inequality has been unequal, and that this has undermined Americans' opportunities to express their views on an equal basis. Framing Inequality is a unique study that offers critical understanding of not only how neoliberalism succeeded as a political project, but also how Americans might begin to build a more democratic and egalitarian media system.},
  isbn = {978-0-19-088818-3},
  keywords = {Economic inequality,Support for redistribution}
}

@article{hainmueller2014,
  title = {Causal {{Inference}} in {{Conjoint Analysis}}: {{Understanding Multidimensional Choices}} via {{Stated Preference Experiments}}},
  shorttitle = {Causal {{Inference}} in {{Conjoint Analysis}}},
  author = {Hainmueller, Jens and Hopkins, Daniel J. and Yamamoto, Teppei},
  year = {2014},
  journal = {Political Analysis},
  volume = {22},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1--30},
  issn = {1047-1987, 1476-4989},
  doi = {10.1093/pan/mpt024},
  urldate = {2019-06-21},
  abstract = {Survey experiments are a core tool for causal inference. Yet, the design of classical survey experiments prevents them from identifying which components of a multidimensional treatment are influential. Here, we show how conjoint analysis, an experimental design yet to be widely applied in political science, enables researchers to estimate the causal effects of multiple treatment components and assess several causal hypotheses simultaneously. In conjoint analysis, respondents score a set of alternatives, where each has randomly varied attributes. Here, we undertake a formal identification analysis to integrate conjoint analysis with the potential outcomes framework for causal inference. We propose a new causal estimand and show that it can be nonparametrically identified and easily estimated from conjoint data using a fully randomized design. The analysis enables us to propose diagnostic checks for the identification assumptions. We then demonstrate the value of these techniques through empirical applications to voter decision making and attitudes toward immigrants.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Methodology},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/KBB49EYR/Hainmueller et al. - 2014 - Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis Understandi.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/GG5WWWL4/414DA03BAA2ACE060FFE005F53EFF8C8.html}
}

@article{hainmueller2015,
  title = {The {{Hidden American Immigration Consensus}}: {{A Conjoint Analysis}} of {{Attitudes}} toward {{Immigrants}}},
  shorttitle = {The {{Hidden American Immigration Consensus}}},
  author = {Hainmueller, Jens and Hopkins, Daniel J.},
  year = {2015},
  journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
  volume = {59},
  number = {3},
  pages = {529--548},
  issn = {1540-5907},
  doi = {10.1111/ajps.12138},
  urldate = {2019-06-21},
  abstract = {Many studies have examined Americans' immigration attitudes. Yet prior research frequently confounds multiple questions, including which immigrants to admit and how many to admit. To isolate attitudes on the former question, we use a conjoint experiment that simultaneously tests the influence of nine immigrant attributes in generating support for admission. Drawing on a two-wave, population-based survey, we demonstrate that Americans view educated immigrants in high-status jobs favorably, whereas they view those who lack plans to work, entered without authorization, are Iraqi, or do not speak English unfavorably. Strikingly, Americans' preferences vary little with their own education, partisanship, labor market position, ethnocentrism, or other attributes. Beneath partisan divisions over immigration lies a broad consensus about who should be admitted to the country. The results are consistent with norms-based and sociotropic explanations of immigration attitudes. This consensus points to limits in both theories emphasizing economic and cultural threats, and sheds new light on an ongoing policy debate.},
  copyright = {{\copyright}2014, Midwest Political Science Association},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Attitudes,Migration},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/WYSF3E5G/Hainmueller and Hopkins - 2015 - The Hidden American Immigration Consensus A Conjo.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/EJXUM3TW/ajps.html}
}

@phdthesis{hansen2018,
  title = {Perceptions of Rich and Poor People's Efforts and Public Opinion about Economic Redistribution: {{PhD}} Dissertation},
  shorttitle = {Perceptions of Rich and Poor People's Efforts and Public Opinion about Economic Redistribution},
  author = {Hansen, Kristina Jessen},
  year = {2018},
  address = {Aarhus},
  langid = {english},
  school = {University of Aarhus, Institut for Statskundskab},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Support for redistribution},
  annotation = {OCLC: 1040673390},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/LCDYB6VL/Jessen Hansen et al. - 2018 - Perceptions of rich and poor people's efforts and .pdf}
}

@article{hansen2023,
  ids = {hansen2022},
  title = {Greed, {{Envy}}, and {{Admiration}}: {{The Distinct Nature}} of {{Public Opinion}} about {{Redistribution}} from the {{Rich}}},
  shorttitle = {Greed, {{Envy}}, and {{Admiration}}},
  author = {Hansen, Kristina Jessen},
  year = {2023},
  month = feb,
  journal = {American Political Science Review},
  volume = {117},
  number = {1},
  pages = {217--234},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  issn = {0003-0554, 1537-5943},
  doi = {10.1017/S0003055422000582},
  urldate = {2024-06-05},
  abstract = {Research on public opinion about economic redistribution has made important progress by incorporating the psychological microfoundation that shapes support for redistribution to the poor. However, one piece is missing: the microfoundation shaping support for redistribution from the rich. I provide a novel theory about this facet of redistributive attitudes and how it is distinct. Observational data from three nationally representative samples in two different welfare systems and an experiment show that attitudes about taking from the rich are mainly driven by perceptions of their prosociality---whether they are greedy or generous. This contrasts with public opinion about giving to the poor that is mainly driven by perceptions of the efforts of poor people. Furthermore, while compassion shapes attitudes about giving to the poor, the emotions of admiration and envy shape attitudes about taking from the rich. These findings have important theoretical and empirical implications for public opinion about economic redistribution.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Support for redistribution,The rich},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/M8L3RU5T/Hansen - 2023 - Greed, Envy, and Admiration The Distinct Nature o.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/U2HBA37K/E543665F093D06A335DA3241222E7509.html}
}

@unpublished{harrs2023,
  title = {Fairness and {{Support}} for {{Welfare Policies}}},
  author = {Harrs, Soren and Sterba, Maj-Britt},
  year = {2023},
  urldate = {2024-04-30},
  abstract = {How do fairness views shape people's support for welfare policies? Using large surveys in representative samples of US Americans, we study the roles of two determinants of fairness views: fairness preferences - revealed through transfer choices in a spectator game - and beliefs about the causes of inequality. We establish three novel findings: First, people with egalitarian, libertarian, and meritocratic fairness preferences differ strongly in their support for welfare policies. Second, beliefs about the causes of inequality have a strong effect on the policy support of meritocrats, but a much weaker effect on non-meritocrats. Third, leveraging individual-level panel data collected during the coronavirus pandemic, we show that shifts in support for welfare policies over time are rather caused by shocks to beliefs, than by shocks to fairness preferences. Our findings demonstrate that heterogeneous fairness preferences and beliefs interact in important ways in shaping people's support for welfare policies, which has theoretical implications for models in political economy. This paper also has practical implications because it documents a declining belief in a meritocratic US society, related to personal experiences during the pandemic, which may have long-term consequences for the US welfare state.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/A6CRMX7Z/Harrs and Sterba - Fairness and Support for Welfare Policies.pdf}
}

@misc{heiss2023,
  title = {The Ultimate Practical Guide to Conjoint Analysis with {{R}}},
  author = {Heiss, Andrew},
  year = {2023},
  urldate = {2024-06-28},
  abstract = {Learn how to use R, \{brms\}, and \{marginaleffects\} to analyze conjoint data and find causal and descriptive quantities of interest, both frequentistly and Bayesianly},
  howpublished = {https://www.andrewheiss.com/blog/2023/07/25/conjoint-bayesian-frequentist-guide/},
  langid = {english}
}

@inproceedings{io-low2021,
  ids = {io-low2020},
  title = {To {{Tax}} or {{Not}} to {{Tax}}: {{Conservatives}}' and {{Liberals}}' {{Differing Attitudes}} on the {{Rich}}},
  booktitle = {{{MPSA Annual Convention}}},
  author = {{Io-Low}, Michelle},
  year = {2021},
  month = apr,
  address = {Chicago, IL},
  keywords = {Support for redistribution,The rich},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/2BXH9QCB/IoLow_MPSA2021_TaxornottoTax.docx}
}

@incollection{jou2017,
  title = {Left-{{Right Orientations}} and {{Voting Behavior}}},
  booktitle = {Oxford {{Research Encyclopedia}} of {{Politics}}},
  author = {Jou, Willy and Dalton, Russell J.},
  year = {2017},
  month = may,
  doi = {10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.581},
  urldate = {2024-06-27},
  abstract = {"Left-Right Orientations and Voting Behavior" published on  by Oxford University Press.},
  isbn = {978-0-19-022863-7},
  langid = {english}
}

@article{kane2023,
  ids = {kane2023a},
  title = {What {{They Have}} but {{Also Who They Are}}: {{Avarice}}, {{Elitism}}, and {{Public Support}} for {{Taxing}} the {{Rich}}},
  shorttitle = {What {{They Have}} but {{Also Who They Are}}},
  author = {Kane, John V and Newman, Benjamin J},
  year = {2023},
  month = may,
  journal = {Public Opinion Quarterly},
  issn = {0033-362X},
  doi = {10.1093/poq/nfad016},
  urldate = {2023-05-13},
  abstract = {Scholarship evaluating public support for redistribution has emphasized that stereotypical perceptions of low-income people inform citizens' willingness to redistribute wealth to the poor. Less understood, however, is the extent to which stereotypical perceptions of high-income people lead to greater willingness to raise taxes on high-income individuals. These perceptions likely involve resource-based considerations (i.e., what rich people have). However, following recent scholarship, perceptions of the wealthy may also involve more fundamental, trait-based considerations (i.e., who the rich are as people). In this Research Note, we isolate causal effects, utilizing conjoint experiments, of both resource-based and character-based attributes of the rich on support for taxing wealthy people. We find evidence that two character traits---avarice and elitism---significantly increase support for raising taxes on wealthy individuals, and this pattern appears to be the case even among groups generally opposed to redistribution (e.g., Republicans and conservatives). We conclude that, while resource-based considerations remain important, the scholarly literature on redistribution may also benefit from a deeper understanding of the trait-based foundations of public attitudes toward taxing the wealthy.},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/AY453HYI/Kane and Newman - 2023 - What They Have but Also Who They Are Avarice, Eli.pdf}
}

@article{kim2023,
  ids = {kim2022},
  title = {Entertaining {{Beliefs}} in {{Economic Mobility}}},
  author = {Kim, Eunji},
  year = {2023},
  journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
  volume = {67},
  number = {1},
  pages = {39--54},
  issn = {1540-5907},
  doi = {10.1111/ajps.12702},
  urldate = {2022-12-08},
  abstract = {Americans have long believed in upward mobility and the narrative of the American Dream. Even in the face of rising income inequality and substantial empirical evidence that economic mobility has declined in recent decades, many Americans remain convinced of the prospects for upward mobility. What explains this disconnect? I argue that their media diets play an important role in explaining this puzzle. Specifically, contemporary Americans are watching a record number of entertainment TV programs that emphasize ``rags-to-riches'' narratives. I demonstrate that such shows have become a ubiquitous part of the media landscape over the last two decades. Online and lab-in-the-field experiments as well as national surveys show that exposure to these programs increases viewers' beliefs in the American Dream and promotes internal attributions of wealth. Media exemplars present in what Americans leisurely consume every day can powerfully distort economic perceptions and have important implications for public preferences for economic redistribution.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Inequality - attitudes,Media,Mobility,Support for redistribution},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/Z3HFYPHH/Kim - Entertaining Beliefs in Economic Mobility.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/8G4G6RC8/ajps.html}
}

@article{kinder1981a,
  title = {Sociotropic {{Politics}}: {{The American Case}}},
  shorttitle = {Sociotropic {{Politics}}},
  author = {Kinder, Donald R. and Kiewiet, D. Roderick},
  year = {1981},
  month = apr,
  journal = {British Journal of Political Science},
  volume = {11},
  number = {2},
  pages = {129--161},
  issn = {1469-2112, 0007-1234},
  doi = {10.1017/S0007123400002544},
  urldate = {2024-05-21},
  abstract = {American elections depend substantially on the vitality of the national economy. Prosperity benefits candidates for the House of Representatives from the incumbent party (defined as the party that controls the presidency at the time of the election), whereas economic downturns enhance the electoral fortunes of opposition candidates. Short-term fluctuations in economic conditions also appear to affect the electorate's presidential choice, as well as the level of public approval conferred upon the president during his term. By this evidence, the political consequences of macroeconomic conditions are both pervasive and powerful. But just how do citizens know whether the incumbent party has succeeded or failed? What kinds of economic evidence do people weigh in their political appraisals? The purpose of our paper is to examine two contrasting depictions of individual citizens -- one emphasizing the political significance of citizens' own economic predicaments, the other stressing the political importance of citizens' assessments of the nation's economic predicament -- that might underlie the aggregate entwining of economics and politics. Ours is an inquiry into the political economy of individual citizens.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/AIK9MVTY/Kinder and Kiewiet - 1981 - Sociotropic Politics The American Case.pdf}
}

@book{kluegel1986,
  title = {Beliefs about Inequality: {{Americans}}' Views of What Is and What Ought to Be},
  author = {Kluegel, James R and Smith, E. R.},
  year = {1986},
  publisher = {Aldine De Gruyter},
  address = {New York},
  keywords = {Income inequality,Inequality - perceptions,Support for redistribution}
}

@article{kootstra2016,
  title = {Deserving and {{Undeserving Welfare Claimants}} in {{Britain}} and the {{Netherlands}}: {{Examining}} the {{Role}} of {{Ethnicity}} and {{Migration Status Using}} a {{Vignette Experiment}}},
  shorttitle = {Deserving and {{Undeserving Welfare Claimants}} in {{Britain}} and the {{Netherlands}}},
  author = {Kootstra, Anouk},
  year = {2016},
  month = jun,
  journal = {European Sociological Review},
  volume = {32},
  number = {3},
  pages = {325--338},
  issn = {0266-7215, 1468-2672},
  doi = {10.1093/esr/jcw010},
  urldate = {2020-03-25},
  abstract = {Immigrants' access to and use of welfare benefits have been the subject of heated debate in many west-European countries. In this article, I examine public solidarity with unemployed welfare claimants and focus on how claimants' ethnic background and migration status affect their perceived deservingness. I use a novel vignette experiment administered among a representative sample of 5,000 respondents from Britain and 4,000 from the Netherlands. Besides ethnic background and migration status, I manipulated six other characteristics of the claimant, such as effort to find a new job, level of need, and work history. I show that the ethnic background of claimants is not a decisive factor of deservingness once these other factors are accounted for. In the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent also in Britain, second-generation ethnic minorities who have a long work history and who make much effort to find a new job are considered as deserving as similar majority claimants. However, this analyses did expose a double standard: ethnic minority claimants who exhibit `unfavourable' behaviour---those who migrated at a later age, failed to look for work, or have a short work history---are punished more severely for this than similar majority Dutch or British claimants.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Migration},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/NJEXWHEG/Kootstra - 2016 - Deserving and Undeserving Welfare Claimants in Bri.pdf}
}

@misc{leeper2020,
  title = {Cregg: {{Simple Conjoint Tidying}}, {{Analysis}}, and {{Visualization}}},
  shorttitle = {Cregg},
  author = {Leeper, Thomas J. and Barnfield, Matthew},
  year = {2020},
  month = jun,
  urldate = {2020-08-09},
  abstract = {Simple tidying, analysis, and visualization of conjoint (factorial) experiments, including estimation and visualization of average marginal component effects ('AMCEs') and marginal means ('MMs') for weighted and un-weighted survey data, along with useful reference category diagnostics and statistical tests. Estimation of 'AMCEs' is based upon methods described by Hainmueller, Hopkins, and Yamamoto (2014) {$<$}doi:10.1093/pan/mpt024{$>$}.},
  copyright = {MIT + file LICENSE}
}

@article{manza2021,
  title = {Mobility {{Optimism}} in an {{Age}} of {{Rising Inequality}}},
  author = {Manza, Jeff and Brooks, Clem},
  year = {2021},
  journal = {The Sociological Quarterly},
  volume = {62},
  number = {2},
  pages = {343--367},
  publisher = {Routledge},
  issn = {0038-0253},
  doi = {10.1080/00380253.2020.1756520},
  urldate = {2020-07-09},
  abstract = {Four decades of rising incomes at the top, combined with income stagnation and declining intergenerational social mobility for the majority of American households, have combined to produce what has been widely described as a ``new gilded age'' in the United States. Yet analyses of the best available survey data reveal little evidence of a proportional increase in policy demands for redistribution over time. What explains this puzzling pattern of non-responsiveness? One classical explanation, revived in recent economic literature, postulates that high and persisting levels of optimism about the chances for advancement and social mobility reduce Americans' willingness to support redistributive public policies. Although seemingly paradoxical in the current economic environment, the ``prospect of upward mobility'' (POUM) hypothesis is consistent with cross-national survey evidence revealing relatively high levels of support for such beliefs. What about trends over-time? This raises an important and largely unexamined question: Have underlying beliefs about POUM also shaped Americans' attitudes toward redistributive policies during the era of rising inequality? In this paper, we examine the POUM-policy preference link, and how it has changed in recent decades. We find that POUM beliefs have shaped how individuals form policy attitudes toward inequality and taxes, net of partisanship, income, and confidence in government. Study findings provide new and provocative evidence in support of the POUM hypothesis, and we discuss implications for models of inequality attitudes and more generally scholarship on the politics of rising inequality.},
  keywords = {Income inequality,Mobility,Support for redistribution},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/S3RV9UL9/Manza and Brooks - 2020 - Mobility Optimism in an Age of Rising Inequality.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/CUVPK669/00380253.2020.html}
}

@book{mccall2013,
  title = {The {{Undeserving Rich}}: {{Beliefs}} about {{Inequality}}, {{Opportunity}}, and {{Redistribution}} in {{American Society}}},
  author = {McCall, Leslie},
  year = {2013},
  number = {March},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  address = {Cambridge},
  abstract = {Table of contents: Introduction: Thinking about Income Inequality Beyond the Opposition between Opportunity and Inequality: Theories of Beliefs about Inequality from the 19th Century to the Present The Emergence of a New Social Issue: Media Coverage of Income Inequality and Class in the U.S., 1980-2010 American Beliefs about Income Inequality: What, When, Who, and Why Why Do Americans Care about Income Inequality? The Role of Opportunity Social Policy Preferences in the Era of Rising Inequality Conclusion: Beliefs about Income Inequality in the 21st Century},
  keywords = {Income inequality,Mobility},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/IVJDR8SP/McCall - The Undeserving Rich Beliefs about Inequality, Opportunity, and Redistribution in American Society - 2013.pdf}
}

@article{mccall2017,
  title = {Exposure to Rising Inequality Shapes {{Americans}}' Opportunity Beliefs and Policy Support},
  author = {McCall, Leslie and Burk, Derek and Laperri{\`e}re, Marie and Richeson, Jennifer A.},
  year = {2017},
  month = sep,
  journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  volume = {114},
  number = {36},
  pages = {9593--9598},
  issn = {0027-8424, 1091-6490},
  doi = {10.1073/pnas.1706253114},
  urldate = {2020-02-10},
  abstract = {Economic inequality has been on the rise in the United States since the 1980s and by some measures stands at levels not seen since before the Great Depression. Although the strikingly high and rising level of economic inequality in the nation has alarmed scholars, pundits, and elected officials alike, research across the social sciences repeatedly concludes that Americans are largely unconcerned about it. Considerable research has documented, for instance, the important role of psychological processes, such as system justification and American Dream ideology, in engendering Americans' relative insensitivity to economic inequality. The present work offers, and reports experimental tests of, a different perspective---the opportunity model of beliefs about economic inequality. Specifically, two convenience samples (study 1, n = 480; and study 2, n = 1,305) and one representative sample (study 3, n = 1,501) of American adults were exposed to information about rising economic inequality in the United States (or control information) and then asked about their beliefs regarding the roles of structural (e.g., being born wealthy) and individual (e.g., hard work) factors in getting ahead in society (i.e., opportunity beliefs). They then responded to policy questions regarding the roles of business and government actors in reducing economic inequality. Rather than revealing insensitivity to rising inequality, the results suggest that rising economic inequality in contemporary society can spark skepticism about the existence of economic opportunity in society that, in turn, may motivate support for policies designed to redress economic inequality.},
  copyright = {{\copyright}  . Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.},
  langid = {english},
  pmid = {28831007},
  keywords = {Income inequality,Inequality - perceptions},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/IQ82WEED/McCall et al. - 2017 - Exposure to rising inequality shapes Americans’ op.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/X89E8Z5B/9593.html}
}

@book{mcclendon2018,
  title = {Envy in {{Politics}}},
  author = {McClendon, Gwyneth H.},
  year = {2018},
  publisher = {Princeton University Press},
  address = {Princeton},
  keywords = {Emotions,Political psychology,Support for redistribution}
}

@article{meuleman2020,
  title = {Welfare Deservingness Opinions from Heuristic to Measurable Concept: {{The CARIN}} Deservingness Principles Scale},
  shorttitle = {Welfare Deservingness Opinions from Heuristic to Measurable Concept},
  author = {Meuleman, Bart and Roosma, Femke and Abts, Koen},
  year = {2020},
  month = jan,
  journal = {Social Science Research},
  volume = {85},
  pages = {102352},
  issn = {0049-089X},
  doi = {10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102352},
  urldate = {2020-02-17},
  abstract = {A steadily growing number of studies investigate how popular support for social policies targeting particular groups is rooted in citizens' deservingness opinions. According to theory, people fall back on five criteria -- Control, Attitude, Reciprocity, Identity and Need (CARIN) -- to distinguish the deserving from the undeserving. Deservingness opinions are assumed to be important predictors of support for particular welfare arrangements. A striking feature of this emerging research, however, is that there is no agreed-upon strategy to measure deservingness. Most previous studies rely on proxy-variables rather than measuring the actual deservingness criteria. Deservingness functions as a heuristic rather than as a measured concept, which leads to conceptual confusion. To remedy this shortcoming, this contribution proposes and validates a new instrument --the CARIN deservingness principles scale- that captures the five basic deservingness principles. We analyse data from the Belgian National Election Study by means of structural equation modelling (SEM) to (1) test the dimensionality, validity and reliability of the scale, and (2) verify to what extent the five deservingness principles predict specific policy preferences (as a test of construct validity). Our analyses confirm that the five deservingness principles are distinct dimensions that are differently related to social structural variables and have divergent consequences for policy preferences. The finding of theoretically meaningful patterns of differentiated effects illustrates that the CARIN criteria represent distinct logics of social justice, and corroborates that our measurement instrument is capable of tapping into the essence of these criteria.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Migration},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/I5BT2ESI/Meuleman et al. - 2020 - Welfare deservingness opinions from heuristic to m.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/YBTAFWH3/S0049089X18308937.html}
}

@article{mijs2021,
  title = {The {{Paradox}} of {{Inequality}}: {{Income Inequality}} and {{Belief}} in {{Meritocracy}} Go {{Hand}} in {{Hand}}},
  author = {Mijs, Jonathan J. B.},
  year = {2021},
  journal = {Socio-Economic Review},
  volume = {19},
  number = {1},
  pages = {7--35},
  doi = {10.1093/ser/mwy051},
  abstract = {Research documents growing income inequality across the West: over the last three decades, income gains have been concentrated among a small group of citizens, while many have seen their economic position stagnate or fall. Despite what scholars, journalists and politicians consider to be a worrying trend, there is no evidence of growing popular concern with inequality. In fact, research suggests that citizens in more unequal societies are less concerned with inequality than those in more egalitarian societies. How to make sense of this paradox? I argue that what explains citizens' consent with inequality is their growing conviction that societal success is reflective of a meritocratic process. Drawing on 25-years of International Social Survey Programma (ISSP) data, from 1987 to 2012, I show that the rise of inequality is accompanied by an attitudinal shift that legitimates the growing gap as meritocratically deserved: the more unequal a society, the more likely its citizens are to explain success in terms of meritocratic factors (hard work, ambition and talent), and the less important they deem non-meritocratic factors such as a persons family wealth and connections.},
  keywords = {Income inequality,Mobility},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/VXTPG3JS/Mijs - The Paradox of Inequality Income Inequality and Belief in Meritocracy go Hand in Hand - 2019.pdf}
}

@article{moniz2024,
  title = {Generalizing toward {{Nonrespondents}}: {{Effect Estimates}} in {{Survey Experiments Are Broadly Similar}} for {{Eager}} and {{Reluctant Participants}}},
  shorttitle = {Generalizing toward {{Nonrespondents}}},
  author = {Moniz, Philip and {Ramirez-Perez}, Rodrigo and Hartman, Erin and Jessee, Stephen},
  year = {2024},
  month = may,
  journal = {Political Analysis},
  pages = {1--14},
  issn = {1047-1987, 1476-4989},
  doi = {10.1017/pan.2024.8},
  urldate = {2024-05-23},
  abstract = {Survey experiments on probability samples are a popular method for investigating population-level causal questions due to their strong internal validity. However, lower survey response rates and an increased reliance on online convenience samples raise questions about the generalizability of survey experiments. We examine this concern using data from a collection of 50 survey experiments which represent a wide range of social science studies. Recruitment for these studies employed a unique double sampling strategy that first obtains a sample of ``eager'' respondents and then employs much more aggressive recruitment methods with the goal of adding ``reluctant'' respondents to the sample in a second sampling wave. This approach substantially increases the number of reluctant respondents who participate and also allows for straightforward categorization of eager and reluctant survey respondents within each sample. We find no evidence that treatment effects for eager and reluctant respondents differ substantially. Within demographic categories often used for weighting surveys, there is also little evidence of response heterogeneity between eager and reluctant respondents. Our results suggest that social science findings based on survey experiments, even in the modern era of very low response rates, provide reasonable estimates of population average treatment effects among a deeper pool of survey respondents in a wide range of settings.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Online samples},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/QK6U9XJ8/Moniz et al. - 2024 - Generalizing toward Nonrespondents Effect Estimat.pdf}
}

@article{mutz1997,
  title = {Dimensions of {{Sociotropic Behavior}}: {{Group-Based Judgements}} of {{Fairness}} and {{Well-Being}}},
  author = {Mutz, Diana C and Mondak, Jeffrey J.},
  year = {1997},
  journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
  volume = {41},
  number = {1},
  pages = {284--308},
  keywords = {Inequality - perceptions,Information effects,Welfare state},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/3QV6FCPP/Mutz, Mondak - Dimensions of Sociotropic Behavior Group-Based Judgements of Fairness and Well-Being - 1997.pdf}
}

@unpublished{newman2020a,
  type = {Working {{Paper}}},
  title = {What {{They Have}} or {{Who They Are}}? {{Avarice}}, {{Elitism}} and {{Public Support}} for {{Taxing}} the {{Rich}}},
  author = {Newman, Benjamin and Kane, John},
  year = {2020},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/FGQVX9C9/What They Have or Who They Are_FINAL_BLINDED_ID.docx}
}

@techreport{obrien2011,
  type = {Research {{Note}}},
  title = {Attitudes to {{Fairness}}, {{Poverty}} and {{Welfare Reform}}},
  author = {O'Brien, Neil},
  year = {2011},
  month = apr,
  address = {London},
  institution = {Policy Exchange},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Fairness,Support for redistribution},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/8J62WNPZ/O’Brien - Attitudes to Fairness, Poverty and Welfare Reform.pdf}
}

@misc{oecd2023,
  title = {Tax {{Database}}. {{Table I}}.7. {{Top}} Statutory Personal Income Tax Rates},
  author = {OECD},
  year = {2023},
  urldate = {2024-06-26},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/6QGY2AQ6/1b888a16-cb9d-48f6-abfd-d7f5f303a6e6.xls}
}

@article{oorschot2000,
  title = {Who Should Get What, and Why? {{On}} Deservingness Criteria and the Conditionality of Solidarity among the Public},
  shorttitle = {Who Should Get What, and Why?},
  author = {van Oorschot, Wim},
  year = {2000},
  month = jan,
  journal = {Policy and Politics: Studies of local government and its services},
  volume = {28},
  number = {1},
  pages = {33--48},
  doi = {info:doi/10.1332/0305573002500811},
  urldate = {2019-11-06},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Fairness},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/DR95E7ZC/Oorschot - 2000 - Who should get what, and why On deservingness cri.pdf}
}

@article{oorschot2006,
  title = {Making the Difference in Social {{Europe}}: Deservingness Perceptions among Citizens of {{European}} Welfare States},
  author = {van Oorschot, Wim},
  year = {2006},
  journal = {Journal of European Social Policy},
  volume = {16},
  number = {1},
  pages = {23--42},
  doi = {10.1177/0958928706059829},
  abstract = {W elfare states treat different groups of needy people differently. Such differential rationing may reflect various considerations of policymakers, who act in economic, political and cultural contexts. This article aims at contributing to a theoretical and empirical understanding of the popular cultural context of welfare rationing. It examines European public perceptions of the relative deservingness of four needy groups (elderly people, sick and disabled people, unemployed people, and immigrants). Hypotheses, deduced from a literature review, are tested against data from the 1999/2000 European V alues Study survey. It is found that Europeans share a common and fundamental deservingness culture: across countries and social categories there is a consistent pattern that elderly people are seen as most deserving, closely followed by sick and disabled people; unemployed people are seen as less deserving still, and immigrants as least deserving of all. Conditionality is greater in poorer countries, in countries with lower unemployment, and in coun- tries where people have less trust in fellow citizens and in state institutions. At the national level there is no relation with welfare regime type or welfare spending. Individual differences in condi- tionality are determined by several socio-demographic and attitudinal characteristics, as well as by certain features of the country people live in. Key},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Fairness},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/FKRHGR9Z/Oorschot - Article Making the difference in social Europe deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states - 2006.PDF}
}

@book{oorschot2017,
  ids = {vanoorschot2017},
  title = {The {{Social Legitimacy}} of {{Targeted Welfare}}: {{Attitudes}} to {{Welfare Deservingness}}},
  shorttitle = {The {{Social Legitimacy}} of {{Targeted Welfare}}},
  author = {van Oorschot, Wim and Roosma, Femke and Meuleman, Bart and Reeskens, Tim},
  year = {2017},
  month = sep,
  publisher = {Edward Elgar Pub},
  address = {Cheltenham, Glos, UK ; Northampton, Massachusetts, USA},
  abstract = {Presenting a stimulating contribution to the quickly advancing field of welfare attitudes research, this important book develops the understanding of welfare legitimacy. It does so by assessing the nature of popular judgments about welfare deservingness, as well as the roots and consequences of these attitudes, offering a state-of-the-art picture of the latest theoretical, conceptual and methodological developments. The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare provides a multidisciplinary view on deservingness attitudes, with contributions from sociology, political science, media studies and social psychology. It advocates a multi-actor perspective, looking not only at citizens' attitudes, but also at attitudes of social administrators and policy-makers. The chapters also present new research methods in the field, including discrete choice experiments, factorial surveys, focus groups, and media content analysis. This book will be of interest to students and researchers in sociology, political science, and the fields of social psychology, philosophy, economics and history. It will help practitioners and policymakers in social policy, social work and healthcare understand popular perceptions and beliefs regarding just distributions of welfare.Contributors include: H. Blomberg, A. Bos, C. Buss, R. de Vries, M. De Wilde, B. Ebbinghaus, S. Evers, A. Fladmoe, B.B. Geiger, M. Hiligsmann, M. Jeene, J. Kallio, O. Kangas, A. Kootstra, C. Kroll, S. Kumlin, T. Laenen, D. Lepianka, B. Meuleman, E. Naumann, M. Niemel{\"a}, A. Paulus, J. Ragusa, T. Reeskens, F. Roosma, M. Sadin, K. Steen-Johnson, W. Uunk, M. van der Aa, T. van der Meer, B. van Doorn, W. van Oorschot, D. Wollebaek},
  isbn = {978-1-78536-720-5},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Migration},
  annotation = {http://ezproxy.memphis.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true\&db=nlebk\&AN=1606859\&site=ehost-live},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/UCFRMJR4/Oorschot et al. - 2017 - The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare Attitud.pdf}
}

@book{page2009,
  title = {Class {{War}}: {{What Americans Really Think About Economic Inequality}}},
  author = {Page, Benjamin I. and Jacobs, Lawrence R.},
  year = {2009},
  publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
  address = {Chicago},
  keywords = {Income inequality,Inequality - attitudes,Political behavior,Support for redistribution}
}

@article{petersen2011,
  title = {Deservingness versus Values in Public Opinion on Welfare: {{The}} Automaticity of the Deservingness Heuristic},
  author = {Petersen, Michael Bang and Slothuus, Rune and Stubager, Rune and Togeby, Lise},
  year = {2011},
  month = jan,
  journal = {European Journal of Political Research},
  volume = {50},
  number = {1},
  pages = {24--52},
  issn = {03044130},
  doi = {10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01923.x},
  urldate = {2012-07-17},
  abstract = {Public attitudes towards welfare policy are often explained by political values and perceptions of deservingness of welfare recipients.This article addresses how the impact of values and perceptions varies depending on the contextual information that citizens have available when forming welfare opinions. It is argued that whenever citizens face deservingness-relevant cues in public debate or the media, a psychological `deservingness heuristic' is triggered prompting individuals spontaneously to think about welfare policy in terms of who deserves help.This is an automatic process, equally influential among the least and the most politically sophisticated. Moreover, when clear deservingness cues are present, the impact of values on opinions vanishes.These arguments are supported by data from two novel experimental studies embedded in separate nationwide opinion surveys.The findings revise conventional wisdom of how values and heuristics influence public opinion and have major implications for understanding dynamics in aggregate welfare opinion and attempts from political elites to manipulate public opinion.},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Fairness,Political psychology},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/DG84SF87/Petersen et al. - Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare The automaticity of the deservingness heuristic - 2011.pdf}
}

@article{petersen2012a,
  title = {Who {{Deserves Help}}? {{Evolutionary Psychology}}, {{Social Emotions}}, and {{Public Opinion}} about {{Welfare}}},
  author = {Petersen, Michael Bang and Sznycer, Daniel and Cosmides, Leda and Tooby, John},
  year = {2012},
  month = jun,
  journal = {Political Psychology},
  volume = {33},
  number = {3},
  pages = {395--418},
  issn = {0162895X},
  doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00883.x},
  urldate = {2012-05-30},
  abstract = {Evidence suggests that our foraging ancestors engaged in the small-scale equivalent of social insurance as an essential tool of survival and evolved a sophisticated psychology of social exchange (involving the social emotions of compassion and anger) to regulate mutual assistance. Here, we hypothesize that political support for modern welfare policies are shaped by these evolved mental programs. In particular, the compassionate motivation to share with needy nonfamily could not have evolved without defenses against opportunists inclined to take without contributing. Cognitively, such parasitic strategies can be identified by the intentional avoidance of productive effort. When detected, this pattern should trigger anger and down-regulate support for assistance. We tested predictions derived from these hypotheses in four studies in two cultures, showing that subjects' perceptions of recipients' effort to find work drive welfare opinions; that such perceptions (and not related perceptions) regulate compassion and anger (and not related emotions); that the effects of perceptions of recipients' effort on opinions about welfare are mediated by anger and compassion, independently of political ideology; and that these emotions not only influence the content of welfare opinions but also how easily they are formed.},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Fairness,Income inequality,Political psychology,Support for redistribution,Welfare state},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/7ULAC878/Petersen et al. - Who Deserves Help Evolutionary Psychology, Social Emotions, and Public Opinion about Welfare - 2012.pdf}
}

@article{petersen2012b,
  title = {Social {{Welfare}} as {{Small-Scale Help}}: {{Evolutionary Psychology}} and the {{Deservingness Heuristic}}},
  author = {Petersen, Michael Bang},
  year = {2012},
  month = oct,
  journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
  volume = {56},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1--16},
  issn = {00925853},
  doi = {10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00545.x},
  urldate = {2011-10-30},
  abstract = {Public opinion concerning social welfare is largely driven by perceptions of recipient deservingness. Extant research has argued that this heuristic is learned from a variety of cultural, institutional, and ideological sources. The present article provides evidence supporting a different view: that the deservingness heuristic is rooted in psychological categories that evolved over the course of human evolution to regulate small-scale exchanges of help. To test predictions made on the basis of this view, a method designed to measure social categorization is embedded in nationally representative surveys conducted in different countries. Across the national- and individual-level differences that extant research has used to explain the heuristic, people categorize welfare recipients on the basis of whether they are lazy or unlucky. This mode of categorization furthermore induces people to think about large-scale welfare politics as its presumed ancestral equivalent: small-scale help giving. The general implications for research on heuristics are discussed.},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Fairness,Income inequality,Political psychology},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/XX3B36Y2/Petersen - Social Welfare as Small-Scale Help Evolutionary Psychology and the Deservingness Heuristic - 2012.pdf}
}

@book{piston2018,
  title = {Class {{Attitudes}} in {{America}}: {{Sympathy}} for the {{Poor}}, {{Resentment}} of the {{Rich}}, and {{Political Implications}}},
  author = {Piston, Spencer},
  year = {2018},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  address = {New York, NY},
  isbn = {1-108-44712-0},
  keywords = {Attitudes,Income inequality,SES,Support for redistribution,The rich}
}

@article{ragusa2015,
  title = {Socioeconomic {{Stereotypes}}: {{Explaining Variation}} in {{Preferences}} for {{Taxing}} the {{Rich}}},
  author = {Ragusa, Jordan Michael},
  year = {2015},
  journal = {American Politics Research},
  volume = {43},
  number = {2},
  pages = {327--359},
  issn = {1532-673X},
  doi = {10.1177/1532673X14539547},
  urldate = {2016-06-02},
  abstract = {Motivated by research showing that policy preferences are driven by social-interests rather than strict self-interest, this article examines if stereotypes of "the rich" shape Americans' tax policy preferences. For this project, an original free-response survey was designed asking respondents to describe "the rich." Respondents offered 1,570 unique descriptions, ranging from "hard working" and "job producer" to "selfish" and "inheritance." In the analysis, these stereotypes were modeled in three ways: (a) as affective stereotypes, (b) as discrete categories, and (c) as deservingness stereotypes. There are three main findings. First, political ideology and affective stereotypes have large and statistically indistinguishable effects on tax policy preferences. Second, deservingness stereotypes--in particular, whether the rich exhibit dispositional and prosocial characteristics--have particularly large effects on preferences for taxing the wealthy. And third, both affective and deservingness stereotypes have an interactive effect with personal ideology. For self-described liberals, preferences for taxing the wealthy are largely a function of ideological considerations. For conservatives, however, tax policy preferences are determined by a mix of ideology and stereotypes. In sum, the findings suggest that stereotypes affect policy preferences even when the target belongs to an advantaged group and the policy domain is nonracial.},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Economic inequality,Support for redistribution,The rich},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/7AXXF2G2/Ragusa - Socioeconomic Stereotypes Explaining Variation in Preferences for Taxing the Rich - 2014.pdf}
}

@misc{rainey2023,
  title = {Equivalence {{Tests}} with \{marginaleffects\}},
  author = {Rainey, Carlisle},
  year = {2023},
  month = aug,
  urldate = {2024-06-28},
  abstract = {Reproducing the Clark and Golder (2006) example from Rainey (2014)},
  howpublished = {https://www.carlislerainey.com/blog/2023-08-18-equivalence-tests/},
  langid = {english}
}

@article{rapace2020,
  title = {Congressional Candidates Clash over Minimum Wage},
  author = {Rapace, Amanda},
  year = {2020},
  month = may,
  journal = {njtoday.net},
  urldate = {2021-05-18},
  abstract = {Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman got into a war of words with Lisa McCormick on Twitter over the federal minimum wage law and congressional inaction on measures to provide job security, paid sick time and other benefits. McCormick is challenging Watson{\dots}Read more {$\rightarrow$}},
  langid = {american},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/UL8K9R5I/congressional-candidates-clash-over-minimum-wage.html}
}

@article{reeskens2013,
  title = {Equity, Equality, or Need? {{A}} Study of Popular Preferences for Welfare Redistribution Principles across 24 {{European}} Countries},
  shorttitle = {Equity, Equality, or Need?},
  author = {Reeskens, Tim and van Oorschot, Wim},
  year = {2013},
  month = sep,
  journal = {Journal of European Public Policy},
  volume = {20},
  number = {8},
  pages = {1174--1195},
  issn = {1350-1763},
  doi = {10.1080/13501763.2012.752064},
  urldate = {2020-01-03},
  abstract = {Although European welfare states receive high levels of public support, insights into what kind of welfare state individuals prefer -- i.e., one based on the redistributive principle of equity, of equality or of need -- is scarce and fragmented. Using the 2008 wave of the European Social Survey, we find that most European populations share a preference for applying the equality principle to unemployment benefits, while they are divided over applying equity and equality for pension schemes. Individual determinants of preferences confirm that the `haves' prefer equity over equality, while the `have-nots' prefer the need principle more. At the country level, cross-national variation in redistribution preferences is low for unemployment benefits and cannot be explained by relevant context factors; preferences for pension redistribution depends upon its institutional design and social expenditure: welfare generosity curbs the preference for equity.},
  keywords = {Fairness,Support for redistribution},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/JR5EJ75K/Reeskens and Oorschot - 2013 - Equity, equality, or need A study of popular pref.pdf}
}

@article{reeskens2019,
  title = {The Inevitable Deservingness Gap: {{A}} Study into the Insurmountable Immigrant Penalty in Perceived Welfare Deservingness},
  shorttitle = {The Inevitable Deservingness Gap},
  author = {Reeskens, Tim and {van der Meer}, Tom},
  year = {2019},
  month = may,
  journal = {Journal of European Social Policy},
  volume = {29},
  number = {2},
  pages = {166--181},
  publisher = {SAGE Publications Ltd},
  issn = {0958-9287},
  doi = {10.1177/0958928718768335},
  urldate = {2020-03-23},
  abstract = {As the asylum crisis hit Europe in tandem with the Great Recession, concerns about declining support for equal welfare provision to immigrants grow. Although studies on welfare deservingness show that immigrants are deemed least entitled to welfare compared to other target groups, they have fallen short of isolating welfare claimants' identity (i.e. foreign origin) with competing deservingness criteria that might explain the immigrant deservingness gap. This article studies the importance of welfare claimants' foreign origins relative to other theoretically relevant deservingness criteria via a unique vignette experiment among 23,000 Dutch respondents about their preferred levels of unemployment benefits. We show that foreign origin is among the three most important conditions for reduced solidarity, after labour market reintegration behaviour (reciprocity) and culpability for unemployment (control). Furthermore, favourable criteria do not close the gap between immigrants and natives in perceived deservingness, emphasizing the difficulty of overcoming the immigrant penalty in perceived welfare deservingness. We conclude our findings in the light of ongoing theoretical and political debates.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Migration},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/F6ETUHB7/Reeskens and van der Meer - 2019 - The inevitable deservingness gap A study into the.pdf}
}

@article{rodon2020,
  title = {How {{Fair Is It}}? {{An Experimental Study}} of {{Perceived Fairness}} of {{Distributive Policies}}},
  shorttitle = {How {{Fair Is It}}?},
  author = {Rodon, Toni and {Sanjaume-Calvet}, Marc},
  year = {2020},
  journal = {The Journal of Politics},
  volume = {82},
  number = {1},
  pages = {384--391},
  issn = {0022-3816},
  doi = {10.1086/706053},
  abstract = {How do people evaluate fairness of redistributive policies when redistribution is considered multidimensional? We estimate the effect of distributive policies on the top- and bottom-income groups, as well as the effects of general wealth, social mobility, and origin of wealth on people's perceived fairness of the policies. Findings reveal that policies that encourage upward social mobility and an increase in general wealth and reward effort and upward mobility are seen as fair. Yet, what is seen as fair or unfair differs substantially across party and income groups. Policies that promote an increase of the status of the wealthiest, and policies that do not change or deteriorate the status of the poorest, generate different fairness perceptions. But there is room for agreement, as policies that make the poorest wealthier, while keeping the status of the wealthiest, are seen as fair by both Democrats and Republicans and among high- and low-income individuals.},
  keywords = {Fairness,Support for redistribution},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/75T9CHI9/Rodon and Sanjaume-Calvet - 2019 - How Fair Is It An Experimental Study of Perceived.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/XCWGMSCJ/RodonAppendix.pdf}
}

@incollection{sadin2017,
  title = {They're {{Not Worthy}}: {{The Perceived Deservingness}} of the {{Rich}} and Its {{Connection}} to {{Policy Preferences}}},
  booktitle = {The {{Social Legitimacy}} of {{Targeted Welfare}} : {{Attitudes}} to {{Welfare Deservingness}}},
  author = {Sadin, Meredith},
  editor = {Oorschot, Wim Van and Roosma, Femke and Meuleman, Bart and Reeskens, Tim},
  year = {2017},
  pages = {299--315},
  publisher = {Edward Elgar Pub},
  address = {Chelttenham, UK},
  keywords = {Economic inequality,Support for redistribution,The rich}
}

@article{sands2020,
  title = {Local Exposure to Inequality Raises Support of People of Low Wealth for Taxing the Wealthy},
  author = {Sands, Melissa and {de Kadt}, Daniel},
  year = {2020},
  month = sep,
  journal = {Nature},
  pages = {1--5},
  publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},
  issn = {1476-4687},
  doi = {10.1038/s41586-020-2763-1},
  urldate = {2020-09-24},
  abstract = {Psychological research shows that social comparison of individuals with peers or others shapes attitude formation1,2. Opportunities for such comparisons have increased with global inequality3,4; everyday experiences can make economic disparities more salient through signals of social class5,6. Here we show that, among individuals with a lower socioeconomic status, such local exposure to inequality drives support for the redistribution of wealth. We designed a placebo-controlled field experiment conducted in South African neighbourhoods in which individuals with a low socioeconomic status encountered real-world reminders of inequality through the randomized presence of a high-status car. Pedestrians were asked to sign a petition to increase taxes on wealthy individuals to help with the redistribution of wealth. We found an increase of eleven percentage points in the probability of signing the petition in the presence of inequality, when taking into account the experimental placebo effect. The placebo effect suppresses the probability that an individual signs the petition in general, which is consistent with evidence that upward social comparison reduces political efficacy4. Measures of economic inequality were constructed at the neighbourhood level and connected to a survey of individuals with a low socioeconomic status. We found that local exposure to inequality was positively associated with support for a tax on wealthy individuals to address economic disparities. Inequality seems to affect preferences for the redistribution of wealth through local exposure. However, our results indicate that inequality may also suppress participation; the political implications of our findings at regional or country-wide scales therefore remain uncertain.},
  copyright = {2020 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Economic inequality,Support for redistribution},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/4BKYLYC7/Sands and de Kadt - 2020 - Local exposure to inequality raises support of peo.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/VNLK5YRA/s41586-020-2763-1.html}
}

@book{scheve2016,
  title = {Taxing the {{Rich}}: {{A History}} of {{Fiscal Fairness}} in the {{United States}} and {{Europe}}},
  author = {Scheve, Kenneth and Stasavage, David},
  year = {2016},
  publisher = {Princeton University Press},
  address = {Princeton},
  keywords = {Income inequality}
}

@article{scheve2022,
  ids = {scheve2019},
  title = {Equal {{Treatment}} and the {{Inelasticity}} of {{Tax Policy}} to {{Rising Inequality}}},
  author = {Scheve, Kenneth and Stasavage, David},
  year = {2022},
  month = jun,
  journal = {Comparative Political Studies},
  pages = {00104140221108415},
  publisher = {SAGE Publications Inc},
  issn = {0010-4140},
  doi = {10.1177/00104140221108415},
  urldate = {2022-12-08},
  abstract = {We argue that tax policy typically does not respond to inequality because many voters hold equal treatment fairness beliefs for which the expectation is that, just as all have one vote, the state should treat citizens equally on other dimensions of policy. In the tax domain, this means all should pay the same rate. We propose a new survey instrument to measure equal treatment beliefs and implement it in surveys in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We document in all three countries a robust negative partial correlation between the strength of individual equal treatment beliefs and preferences for higher taxes on the rich. We also present results from a survey experiment in the United States that exposes respondents to a violation of equal treatment beliefs?voting weighted by educational attainment. Exposure to this treatment both increases the strength of equal treatment beliefs and decreases support for progressive taxation.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Inequality - attitudes,Support for redistribution,Welfare state},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/GASQTKCK/Scheve and Stasavage - 2022 - Equal Treatment and the Inelasticity of Tax Policy.pdf}
}

@article{schneider1993,
  title = {Social {{Construction}} of {{Target Populations}}: {{Implications}} for {{Politics}} and {{Policy}}},
  shorttitle = {Social {{Construction}} of {{Target Populations}}},
  author = {Schneider, Anne and Ingram, Helen},
  year = {1993},
  month = jun,
  journal = {American Political Science Review},
  volume = {87},
  number = {2},
  pages = {334--347},
  issn = {0003-0554, 1537-5943},
  doi = {10.2307/2939044},
  urldate = {2020-12-22},
  abstract = {We argue that the social construction of target populations is an important, albeit overlooked, political phenomenon that should take its place in the study of public policy by political scientists. The theory contends that social constructions influence the policy agenda and the selection of policy tools, as well as the rationales that legitimate policy choices. Constructions become embedded in policy as messages that are absorbed by citizens and affect their orientations and participation. The theory is important because it helps explain why some groups are advantaged more than others independently of traditional notions of political power and how policy designs reinforce or alter such advantages. An understanding of social constructions of target populations augments conventional hypotheses about the dynamics of policy change, the determination of beneficiaries and losers, the reasons for differing levels and types of participation among target groups, and the role of policy in democracy.},
  langid = {english},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/BT4HVQI6/Schneider and Ingram - 1993 - Social Construction of Target Populations Implica.pdf}
}

@article{shariff2016,
  title = {Income {{Mobility Breeds Tolerance}} for {{Income Inequality}}: {{Cross-National}} and {{Experimental Evidence}}.},
  author = {Shariff, Azim F and Wiwad, Dylan and Aknin, Lara B},
  year = {2016},
  month = may,
  journal = {Perspectives on Psychological Science},
  volume = {11},
  number = {3},
  eprint = {27217250},
  eprinttype = {pubmed},
  pages = {373--80},
  publisher = {SAGE Publications},
  issn = {1745-6924},
  doi = {10.1177/1745691616635596},
  urldate = {2016-10-28},
  abstract = {American politicians often justify income inequality by referencing the opportunities people have to move between economic stations. Though past research has shown associations between income mobility and resistance to wealth redistribution policies, no experimental work has tested whether perceptions of mobility influence tolerance for inequality. In this article, we present a cross-national comparison showing that income mobility is associated with tolerance for inequality and experimental work demonstrating that perceptions of higher mobility directly affect attitudes toward inequality. We find support for both the prospect of upward mobility and the view that peoples' economic station is the product of their own efforts, as mediating mechanisms.},
  pmid = {27217250},
  keywords = {Income inequality,Mobility,Support for redistribution},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/84D4NUN5/Shariff, Wiwad, Aknin - Income Mobility Breeds Tolerance for Income Inequality Cross-National and Experimental Evidence. - 2016.pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/RLCZQWKW/Shariff et al. - 2016 - Income Mobility Breeds Tolerance for Income Inequa.pdf}
}

@article{slothuus2021a,
  title = {How {{Political Parties Shape Public Opinion}} in the {{Real World}}},
  author = {Slothuus, Rune and Bisgaard, Martin},
  year = {2021},
  journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
  volume = {n/a},
  number = {n/a},
  issn = {1540-5907},
  doi = {10.1111/ajps.12550},
  urldate = {2021-01-12},
  abstract = {How powerful are political parties in shaping citizens' opinions? Despite long-standing interest in the flow of influence between partisan elites and citizens, few studies to date examine how citizens react when their party changes its position on a major issue in the real world. We present a rare quasi-experimental panel study of how citizens responded when their political party suddenly reversed its position on two major and salient welfare issues in Denmark. With a five-wave panel survey collected just around these two events, we show that citizens' policy opinions changed immediately and substantially when their party switched its policy position---even when the new position went against citizens' previously held views. These findings advance the current, largely experimental literature on partisan elite influence.},
  copyright = {{\copyright}2020, Midwest Political Science Association},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Classroom use,Partisanship,Public opinion},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/3D6BFTF7/ajps.html}
}

@article{steiner2024,
  title = {The Shifting Issue Content of Left--Right Identification: Cohort Differences in {{Western Europe}}},
  shorttitle = {The Shifting Issue Content of Left--Right Identification},
  author = {Steiner, Nils D.},
  year = {2024},
  month = sep,
  journal = {West European Politics},
  volume = {47},
  number = {6},
  pages = {1276--1303},
  publisher = {Routledge},
  issn = {0140-2382},
  doi = {10.1080/01402382.2023.2214875},
  urldate = {2024-06-27},
  abstract = {Over the last decades, the rising salience of new issues has transformed politics in Western Europe. How has this transformation affected citizens' left--right identities? This study shows how new issues have become integrated into the meaning of left--right among Western Europeans through generational replacement. Mechanisms of political socialisation and elite cue taking imply that how strongly an issue is associated with left--right identities should reflect this issue's politicisation during a cohort's formative years. In line with this, an analysis of the European Social Survey for 12 Western European countries from 2002 to 2018 reveals that environmental protection and immigration attitudes are more strongly associated with left--right positions among those born later. Attitudes towards redistribution tend to be less relevant within more recent cohorts in some countries, though period effects after the European debt crisis point in the opposite direction. This study enhances our understanding of the evolution of political conflict.},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/PSYTYZKJ/Steiner - 2024 - The shifting issue content of left–right identific.pdf}
}

@misc{sterba2022,
  type = {{{SSRN Scholarly Paper}}},
  title = {The {{Fairness}} of {{Inequality Due}} to {{Risk}} and {{Effort Choices}}},
  author = {Sterba, Maj-Britt},
  year = {2022},
  month = jun,
  number = {4132093},
  address = {Rochester, NY},
  doi = {10.2139/ssrn.4132093},
  urldate = {2023-08-11},
  abstract = {Three determining factors for economic inequality are self-chosen effort, self-chosen risk, and external circumstances. The fairness people assign to inequalities due to effort and external circumstances is widely studied. Insights on the fairness of inequalities due to self-chosen effort and self-chosen risk, however, are lacking. I study a novel experimental setting where inequality is due to a choice over effort-provision and a choice over risk-taking. While the resulting inequality is mostly seen as fair, around 10\% of third-party redistribution decisions are in line with a fairness norm that only considers the choice over effort.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Fairness}
}

@article{suhay2020,
  title = {Ideology of {{Affluence}}: {{Rich Americans}}'~{{Explanations}} for {{Inequality}} and {{Attitudes}} toward {{Redistribution}}},
  shorttitle = {Ideology of {{Affluence}}},
  author = {Suhay, Elizabeth and Klasnja, Marko and Rivero, Gonzalo},
  year = {2020},
  month = may,
  journal = {The Journal of Politics},
  publisher = {The University of Chicago Press},
  issn = {0022-3816},
  doi = {10.1086/709672},
  urldate = {2020-05-09},
  abstract = {As economic inequality increases, so does the importance of understanding affluent perspectives on the problem. We examine whether affluent Americans are more likely than others to hold individuals responsible for economic outcomes, and if such beliefs are associated with their attitudes toward redistribution. We conducted a novel survey that oversampled the top 5\% of the U.S. income and wealth distributions. We elicited views about why some people achieve more success than others (intelligence, hard work, family wealth, luck) as well as why people vary in success-linked traits (their choices, environments, genes). Affluent Americans were more likely than others to tie economic outcomes to intelligence and hard work, and the top 1\% were unique in emphasizing both choices and genes as causes of those traits. This individualization of economic outcomes was more strongly associated with economic conservatism among the affluent than others, suggesting it may justify their greater opposition to redistribution.},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Economic inequality,Support for redistribution,The rich},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/72C3SLTC/Suhay et al. - 2020 - Ideology of Affluence Rich Americans' Explanation.pdf}
}

@incollection{thelen2021,
  title = {The {{Anxiety}} of {{Precarity}}: {{The United States}} in {{Comparative Perspective}}},
  booktitle = {Who {{Gets What}}?},
  author = {Thelen, Kathleen and Wiedemann, Andreas},
  editor = {Rosenbluth, Frances and Weir, Margaret},
  year = {2021},
  series = {{{SSRC Anxieties}} of {{Democracy}}},
  pages = {281--306},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  address = {Cambridge},
  keywords = {Welfare state}
}

@misc{umoh2017,
  title = {Jeff {{Bezos}} Says He Learned This Critical Business Skill While Visiting His Grandfather as a Child},
  author = {Umoh, Ruth},
  year = {2017},
  month = nov,
  journal = {CNBC},
  urldate = {2021-05-18},
  abstract = {Jeff Bezos attributes this skill to Amazon's success.},
  chapter = {Make It - Leadership},
  howpublished = {https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/17/jeff-bezos-learned-this-critical-business-skill-from-his-grandfather.html},
  langid = {english},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/TSM5JWMN/Umoh - 2017 - Jeff Bezos says he learned this critical business .pdf;/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/KCSM3T6M/jeff-bezos-learned-this-critical-business-skill-from-his-grandfather.html}
}

@article{vanhootegem2020,
  title = {Differentiated {{Distributive Justice Preferences}}? {{Configurations}} of {{Preferences}} for {{Equality}}, {{Equity}} and {{Need}} in {{Three Welfare Domains}}},
  shorttitle = {Differentiated {{Distributive Justice Preferences}}?},
  author = {Van Hootegem, Arno and Abts, Koen and Meuleman, Bart},
  year = {2020},
  month = jun,
  journal = {Social Justice Research},
  issn = {1573-6725},
  doi = {10.1007/s11211-020-00354-9},
  urldate = {2020-06-23},
  abstract = {Empirical public opinion research on distributive justice often does not acknowledge that individuals' social justice preferences may strongly depend on the particular type of distribution at stake and therefore does not take into account the multiplicity of justice principles that people may simultaneously apply in their distributive judgements. As a result, to contribute to the understanding of differentiated justice preferences, we analyse citizens' preferences for the principles of equality, equity and need in the three welfare domains of health care, pensions and unemployment benefits. In particular, this paper provides insight into the domain specificity of distributive justice preferences, into specific configurations or combinations of justice preferences across domains and into the social and ideological basis of these configurations. On the basis of data from the Belgian National Elections Study of 2014, we conduct a three-step latent class analysis. Results show that the distributive justice principles are preferred to a different extent for various welfare domains and that there is a substantial proportion of respondents that combines different principles of justice across welfare domains. This study also demonstrates that configurations are mainly structured by ideology instead of the social structure.},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Deservingness,Support for redistribution},
  file = {/Users/trump/Zotero/storage/97BUR3MB/Van Hootegem et al. - 2020 - Differentiated Distributive Justice Preferences C.pdf}
}

@book{williamson2017,
  title = {Read {{My Lips}}: {{Why Americans Are Proud}} to {{Pay Taxes}}},
  author = {Williamson, Vanessa},
  year = {2017},
  publisher = {Princeton University Press},
  address = {Princeton},
  urldate = {2020-04-21},
  abstract = {A surprising and revealing look at what Americans really believe about taxes},
  isbn = {978-0-691-17455-6},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Attitudes,Support for redistribution}
}

@article{wolak2020a,
  title = {The {{Dynamic American Dream}}},
  author = {Wolak, Jennifer and Peterson, David A. M.},
  year = {2020},
  journal = {American Journal of Political Science},
  volume = {n/a},
  number = {n/a},
  issn = {1540-5907},
  doi = {10.1111/ajps.12522},
  urldate = {2020-04-21},
  abstract = {The American Dream is central to the national ethos, reflecting people's optimism that all who are willing to work hard can achieve a better life than their parents. Separate from the support for the idea of the American Dream itself is whether the public believes it is attainable. We consider the origins and dynamics of the public's belief in the achievability of the American Dream. Is the American Dream a symbolic vision, rooted in political socialization rather than contemporary politics? Or does optimism about the American Dream follow from the viability of the dream, rising with economic prosperity and falling with declining opportunity? We develop a new macrolevel measure of belief in the American Dream from 1973 to 2018. We show that it moves over time, responsive to changes in social mobility, income inequality, and economic perceptions. As inequality increases, belief in the attainability of the American Dream declines.},
  copyright = {{\copyright}2020, Midwest Political Science Association},
  langid = {english},
  keywords = {Income inequality,Mobility}
}
